Pollster says election could end in landslide

[Denny Crane]

The outliers are useful only in combination with multiple polls. A single outlier poll, taken alone, tells you nothing at all. A bunch of polls, the outliers are useful information. Someone who "really is" way down, won't get an outlier showing him way up. So an outlier showing someone way up gives you an indication that the candidate isn't way down. As an example. But this is only true if taken in combination with other data. Statistical method never throws out data, unless it's simply fraudulent or the method of acquiring it was invalid.

The outliers only magnify the idiocy of averaging a variety of polls together as if that result means anything.

Why is it useful if you average 2 polls where one is a sample of 500 people and a margin of error of +/- 5% and the other is a sample of 1500 people and a margin of error of error of 2%. Or one is a sample of registered voters and the other isn't. Or one is weighted and the other isn't.

It's a weak and pathetic attempt to get some sort of consensus among the various polls and techniques, but it has zero mathematical value to it.

 

[Denny Crane]

The outliers only magnify the idiocy of averaging a variety of polls together as if that result means anything.

Why is it useful if you average 2 polls where one is a sample of 500 people and a margin of error of +/- 5% and the other is a sample of 1500 people and a margin of error of error of 2%. Or one is a sample of registered voters and the other isn't. Or one is weighted and the other isn't.

It's a weak and pathetic attempt to get some sort of consensus among the various polls and techniques, but it has zero mathematical value to it.

I forgot to add this:

In fact, the electoral college projections are equally bogus if you have different polling organizations and techniques used to give Obama a certain state vs. McCain another. This is why Zogby's assessment carries so much weight - he's using his own data, consistent techniques across all states he polls in, factoring in sample sizes, and knows from experience that it's more accurate to use results for likely voters (using his techniques).

 

[Денг Гордон]

It'll be interesting to see how Obama's ground game helps him as well, something the polls don't always pick up, and probably aren't picking up.

Here in Missouri, you have the McCain ground game as 2 people sitting at a table with NOTHING. Just there to talk.

The Obama ground game is 2 people sitting at a table with campaign stuff (stickers, posters, etc.) AND tons of voters registrations forms...not only that, but they have an army of about 20 people at a time going around with clipboards with voter registration forms.

In Indiana, they are doing that at gas stations.

Obama could easily get a ground game bounce that the polls aren't showing.

 

[Денг Гордон]

I'm calling the Zogby Electoral Map bullshit.

I was going through the pollster data, to find the last poll that McCain led in. If you go back, it has been 32 legit polls since McCain led in PA, in April. I say legit, because if you go back 12 polls, you have a McCain lead...done by Zogby. This is one of Zogby's internet polls, which have proved to be completely unreliable (see the 538 pollster ratings). Match the numbers...49 to 44 on pollster.....49 to 44 on Zogby's electoral map. This nutjob is using his internet numbers on his electoral college map.

Numbers match up on Colorado saying it's one of his internet polls too. Same thing happens in Florida, and Virginia, and New Hampshire, etc. etc.

This Zogby guy's electoral map is complete garbage since he is basing it on polls with internet only samples.

 

[Stepping Razor]

Zogby has a pretty poor reputation among pollsters, mainly because he went way out on a limb to call it for Kerry in '04 and ended up looking like an ass. He also continues to try to claim that internet polls are legitimate, when they have terrible results. (The internet polls are the ones called "Zogby Interactive" that are ranked dead last on BG7 Lavigne's list above.)

Whether or not we think Zogby is an especially credible source, I really have a hard time seeing how McCain can win in an electoral blowout. The state-by-state map just isn't favorable for it, and the numbers just haven't been very volatile throughout the campaign. Obama looks to have about 250 electoral votes more or less locked in, McCain about 175-200. That means that McCain pretty much has to run the table of battleground states to win. I think it's quite conceivable that he could do that and end up winning this thing... but with 270-280 electoral votes. If all the tossup states go Obama, then we'd see an electoral wipeout, with Obama getting 350+.

Long story short, I think both candidates still have a good chance to win, but only Obama really has a chance to win in a blowout. Of course, I'm not a pollster, even a crappy one like John Zogby

I think Nate Silver's projections over at fivethirtyeight.com are by far the most compelling of this cycle. Will be interesting to see if his results compare well to the actual election. It would be pretty cool for a guy who started modeling baseball stats to end up being one of our best political forecasters.

SR

 

[Minstrel]

The outliers only magnify the idiocy of averaging a variety of polls together as if that result means anything.

Why is it useful if you average 2 polls where one is a sample of 500 people and a margin of error of +/- 5% and the other is a sample of 1500 people and a margin of error of error of 2%. Or one is a sample of registered voters and the other isn't. Or one is weighted and the other isn't.

It's a weak and pathetic attempt to get some sort of consensus among the various polls and techniques, but it has zero mathematical value to it.

You misunderstood my use of "average." I don't mean a simple average, of adding up all the poll margins and dividing by the number of polls. I meant a weighted average. A poll of 1 person would have such a tiny weighting, it wouldn't have any effect on a weighted mean. A poll with a 100% margin of error would have such a tiny weighting, it wouldn't have any effect on a weighted mean.

So, outliers absolutely should be counted in. If it's an outlier due to being extremely uncertain (high margin of error) or not polling many people, then it's low weighting will reduce its effect on the "average" in proportion to how uncertain its sample is.

 

[Minstrel]

I think Nate Silver's projections over at fivethirtyeight.com are by far the most compelling of this cycle. Will be interesting to see if his results compare well to the actual election. It would be pretty cool for a guy who started modeling baseball stats to end up being one of our best political forecasters.

I love his work at Baseball Prospectus.

 

[mook]

One last thought on the Bradley Effect--ask yourself a question (I got this from Scrubs, but it sort of applies): If you had a choice for a surgeon, and they were equally qualified in every way, would you go with the white woman or the black man?

It's a pretty inflammatory question, and I don't want to sidetrack the discussion. But I immediately answered "the black guy," and so did my (also white) wife when I just asked her. I asked her why, and she gave a shy grin and said, "It's probably a sexism thing." I couldn't help but agree. At least in my two person experiment, sexism outweighed racism.

I think it's one of a few reasons that torpedoed Hillary's once-inevitable nomination.

A lot of people like Sarah Palin (although less than a few weeks ago). They have positive feelings about her. But when they step into the booth and consider that she's a 72-year-old ticker away from being the President, is that going to outweigh racist misgivings?

I have no idea. I'd like to see Zogby, or any pollster, explain the formula for calculating that one.

 

[Minstrel]

One last thought on the Bradley Effect--ask yourself a question (I got this from Scrubs, but it sort of applies): If you had a choice for a surgeon, and they were equally qualified in every way, would you go with the white woman or the black man?

It's a pretty inflammatory question, and I don't want to sidetrack the discussion. But I immediately answered "the black guy," and so did my (also white) wife when I just asked her. I asked her why, and she gave a shy grin and said, "It's probably a sexism thing." I couldn't help but agree. At least in my two person experiment, sexism outweighed racism.

I think it's one of a few reasons that torpedoed Hillary's once-inevitable nomination.

A lot of people like Sarah Palin (although less than a few weeks ago). They have positive feelings about her. But when they step into the booth and consider that she's a 72-year-old ticker away from being the President, is that going to outweigh racist misgivings?

I have no idea. I'd like to see Zogby, or any pollster, explain the formula for calculating that one.

I've often heard people say "A black man will be elected president before a white woman." Intuitively, I'd have guessed racism outweighs sexism, but many people feel sexism is actually much more ingrained and pernicious.

 

[barfo]

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20080925/NEWS01/80925009/1002/NEWS

[FONT=arial, helvetica][FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Pollster says election could end in landslide[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]
Jill Terreri
Staff writer [/FONT] [/FONT]
[FONT=arial, helvetica]The presidential election might be a tight race now, but one of the country’s top pollsters thinks the race will end in an electoral landslide.

John Zogby, president of Zogby International, told a group of businesspeople today that it’s up to Democratic Sen. Barack Obama to convince voters to go with him. If he’s not successful, the country will likely vote for “a comfortable old shoe”, that being Republican Sen. John McCain.

Despite the books Obama has written, Americans are still asking, “Who are you, where are you from?,” Zogby said.

Zogby spoke at the College at Brockport’s Business Briefings breakfast series at the college’s MetroCenter campus on St. Paul Street. He was promoting his new book, The Way We’ll Be: The Zogby Report of the Transformation of the American Dream. [/FONT]

It seems like if you (Staff writer Jill Terreri) are going to say that Zogby thinks the race "will end in an electoral landslide" you should quote Zogby saying that.

I suspect that Zogby said something closer to the headline, that it "could" end in a landslide.

barfo

 

[Денг Гордон]

Yesterday I made a post about ground game, and Obama's in Missouri, and how it is just so much better than McCain's, and much more effective.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...3368120E9B53BDC1862574D0000D8EF4?OpenDocument

Down only 1 point to McCain now in the new Research 2000 poll.

 

[Денг Гордон]

Obama's opened up a 5 point lead in the Rasmussen tracker! http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ial_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

This is pretty big imo, because Rasmussen always seemed to lean against Obama a bit. When other epople had the race at +4 Obama, it had the race at +1 McCain.

Looking at the polls, McCain's favorability has crawled back into the positives, while Palin's is falling again (probably from that horrible interview with Couric). Obama is at +24 favorability, with only 8% with no opinion at this point.

Obama seems to have consolidated the Democratic vote, based on polling, better than Kerry or Gore were able to do, and also seems to be bolstered by the black and latino communities. (Remember when there was all that talk about how they have to pick Hillary, because the latinos would turn to the Republicans because they don't want a black man running things?). I think this race thing is overblown at this point. Obama isn't going to win over many white conservatives. But the White Indies and Liberals, he is doing pretty well in those.

I just don't see there being 5 points to take of Obama. If anything, I see there being basically no effect in the North, maybe a -1 effect on Obama in the rustbelt (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, West Virginia, etc.)...but a +3 Obama effect in the South (Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, etc.).

I think a lot of people are over race in this country, and the people who are still hung up on race are already Republicans, or Democrats in states like West Virginia or Arkansas, which aren't important towards the electoral map this election.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ial_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Obama is now viewed favorably by 56% of voters, McCain by 55%. Tonight’s debate, if it takes place, could be very significant. Forty-one percent (41%) of voters say they are certain to vote for Obama and will not change their mind. Thirty-nine percent (39%) say the same about McCain. The remaining 20% are the target audience for the candidates during the debates and throughout the rest of the campaign. Data to be released later today shows that Obama is seen as having better debating skills and is more likely to help his campaign at the Mississippi forum (Premium Members can get an advance look at the results).

 

[Денг Гордон]

Rasmussen's new poll confirms SurveyUSA's findings that Obama has about a 5-6 point lead in Virginia.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub.../election_2008_virginia_presidential_election

John McCain: Uh Oh, Spaghettios!

 

[Minstrel]

On the eve of the first Presidential Debate, Barack Obama is perhaps in as strong a position in the polls as he has been all year, now projecting to win the election 74.7 percent of the time. Both the state and the national polls that have come out within the past 48 hours have generally been quite favorable to Obama, and suggest that he may gained an additional point or so above and beyond his "Lehman Leap" from last week.

Still, there are a couple of silver linings for McCain in the state polling:

Wait, which silver linings? Well, McCain gets good numbers in West Virginia and Montana, two states that looked like they might just have been on the verge of being competitive. And although Obama looks as though he's slightly ahead in New Hampshire, it also looks to be polling behind his national numbers -- we project Obama to win New Hampshire by 0.7 points, but the national popular vote by 2.9 points. So if the race tightens up, Obama may no longer be able to bank on New Hampshire's 4 electoral votes.

Still, McCain has very serious problems in Virginia, and extremely serious problems in Michigan, which is starting to drift off the swing state list. And forget about the Pacific Northwest. But at this stage, the electoral math is starting to diminish in importance; McCain needs to make gains everywhere, which means he needs a clutch performance in tonight's debate.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/todays-polls-926.html

 

[Denny Crane]

Zogby has a pretty poor reputation among pollsters, mainly because he went way out on a limb to call it for Kerry in '04 and ended up looking like an ass. He also continues to try to claim that internet polls are legitimate, when they have terrible results. (The internet polls are the ones called "Zogby Interactive" that are ranked dead last on BG7 Lavigne's list above.)

Whether or not we think Zogby is an especially credible source, I really have a hard time seeing how McCain can win in an electoral blowout. The state-by-state map just isn't favorable for it, and the numbers just haven't been very volatile throughout the campaign. Obama looks to have about 250 electoral votes more or less locked in, McCain about 175-200. That means that McCain pretty much has to run the table of battleground states to win. I think it's quite conceivable that he could do that and end up winning this thing... but with 270-280 electoral votes. If all the tossup states go Obama, then we'd see an electoral wipeout, with Obama getting 350+.

Long story short, I think both candidates still have a good chance to win, but only Obama really has a chance to win in a blowout. Of course, I'm not a pollster, even a crappy one like John Zogby

I think Nate Silver's projections over at fivethirtyeight.com are by far the most compelling of this cycle. Will be interesting to see if his results compare well to the actual election. It would be pretty cool for a guy who started modeling baseball stats to end up being one of our best political forecasters.

SR

<table style="border-collapse: collapse;" id="AutoNumber2" border="0" bordercolor="#111111" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="650"><tbody><tr><td colspan="9" width="650">

Zogby Poll
VOTE PROJECTION: Nov. 1-2, 2004. N=955 likely voters nationwide. NOTE: Projection released at 5 PM EST, Nov. 2.
10/4-31/04 REUTERS/ZOGBY TRACKING POLL: 3-day rolling sample of approx. 1,200 likely voters nationwide. MoE � 2.9. <GRAPHIC>​

</td> </tr> <tr> <td width="14"> </td> <td width="109"> </td> <td width="75"> </td> <td width="75"> </td> <td width="75"> </td> <td width="75"> </td> <td width="75"> </td> <td width="76"> </td> <td width="76"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="9" width="650">

General Election Trial Heat:​

</td> </tr> <tr> <td width="14"> </td> <td width="109"> </td> <td align="center" valign="bottom" width="75"> Bush</td> <td align="center" valign="bottom" width="75"> Kerry</td> <td align="center" valign="bottom" width="75"> Nader</td> <td align="center" valign="bottom" width="75"> Badnarik</td> <td align="center" valign="bottom" width="75"> Peroutka</td> <td align="center" valign="bottom" width="76"> Cobb</td> <td align="center" valign="bottom" width="76"> Other (vol.)/
Unsure</td> </tr> <tr> <td width="14"> </td> <td width="109"> </td> <td align="center" width="75"> %</td> <td align="center" width="75"> %</td> <td align="center" width="75"> %</td> <td align="center" width="75"> %</td> <td align="center" width="75"> %</td> <td align="center" width="76"> %</td> <td align="center" width="76"> %</td> </tr> <tr> <td width="14"> </td> <td colspan="3" bgcolor="#f7f7f7" width="259">

VOTE PROJECTION, with undecideds allocated:​

</td> <td width="75"> </td> <td width="75"> </td> <td width="75"> </td> <td width="76"> </td> <td width="76"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="14"> </td> <td bgcolor="#f7f7f7" width="109"> 11/1-2/04</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#f7f7f7" width="75"> 49.4</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#f7f7f7" width="75"> 49.1</td> <td width="75"> </td> <td width="75"> </td> <td width="75"> </td> <td width="76"> </td> <td width="76"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="14"> </td> <td width="109"> </td> <td width="75"> </td> <td width="75"> </td> <td width="75"> </td> <td width="75"> </td> <td width="75"> </td> <td width="76"> </td> <td width="76"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="14"> </td> <td width="109"> 10/29-31/04</td> <td align="center" width="75"> 48</td> <td align="center" width="75"> 47</td> <td align="center" width="75"> 1</td> <td align="center" width="75"> -</td> <td align="center" width="75"> -</td> <td align="center" width="76"> -</td> <td align="center" width="76"> 4</td> </tr> <tr> <td width="14"> </td> <td width="109"> 10/28-30/04</td> <td align="center" width="75"> 48</td> <td align="center" width="75"> 48</td> <td align="center" width="75"> 1</td> <td align="center" width="75"> -</td> <td align="center" width="75"> -</td> <td align="center" width="76"> -</td> <td align="center" width="76"> 3</td> </tr> <tr> <td width="14"> </td> <td width="109"> 10/27-29/04</td> <td align="center" width="75"> 46</td> <td align="center" width="75"> 47</td> <td align="center" width="75"> 2</td> <td align="center" width="75"> -</td> <td align="center" width="75"> -</td> <td align="center" width="76"> -</td> <td align="center" width="76"> 4</td> </tr> <tr> <td width="14"> </td> <td width="109"> 10/26-28/04</td> <td align="center" width="75"> 47</td> <td align="center" width="75"> 47</td> <td align="center" width="75"> 1</td> <td align="center" width="75"> -</td> <td align="center" width="75"> -</td> <td align="center" width="76"> -</td> <td align="center" width="76"> 5</td></tr></tbody></table>

 

[Minstrel]

<table style="border-collapse: collapse;" id="AutoNumber2" border="0" bordercolor="#111111" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="650"><tbody><tr><td colspan="9" width="650">

Zogby Poll
VOTE PROJECTION: Nov. 1-2, 2004. N=955 likely voters nationwide. NOTE: Projection released at 5 PM EST, Nov. 2.
10/4-31/04 REUTERS/ZOGBY TRACKING POLL: 3-day rolling sample of approx. 1,200 likely voters nationwide. MoE � 2.9. <GRAPHIC>​

</td> </tr> <tr> <td width="14"> </td> <td width="109"> </td> <td width="75"> </td> <td width="75"> </td> <td width="75"> </td> <td width="75"> </td> <td width="75"> </td> <td width="76"> </td> <td width="76"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="9" width="650">

General Election Trial Heat:​

</td> </tr> <tr> <td width="14"> </td> <td width="109"> </td> <td align="center" valign="bottom" width="75"> Bush</td> <td align="center" valign="bottom" width="75"> Kerry</td> <td align="center" valign="bottom" width="75"> Nader</td> <td align="center" valign="bottom" width="75"> Badnarik</td> <td align="center" valign="bottom" width="75"> Peroutka</td> <td align="center" valign="bottom" width="76"> Cobb</td> <td align="center" valign="bottom" width="76"> Other (vol.)/
Unsure</td> </tr> <tr> <td width="14"> </td> <td width="109"> </td> <td align="center" width="75"> %</td> <td align="center" width="75"> %</td> <td align="center" width="75"> %</td> <td align="center" width="75"> %</td> <td align="center" width="75"> %</td> <td align="center" width="76"> %</td> <td align="center" width="76"> %</td> </tr> <tr> <td width="14"> </td> <td colspan="3" bgcolor="#f7f7f7" width="259">

VOTE PROJECTION, with undecideds allocated:​

</td> <td width="75"> </td> <td width="75"> </td> <td width="75"> </td> <td width="76"> </td> <td width="76"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="14"> </td> <td bgcolor="#f7f7f7" width="109"> 11/1-2/04</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#f7f7f7" width="75"> 49.4</td> <td align="center" bgcolor="#f7f7f7" width="75"> 49.1</td> <td width="75"> </td> <td width="75"> </td> <td width="75"> </td> <td width="76"> </td> <td width="76"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="14"> </td> <td width="109"> </td> <td width="75"> </td> <td width="75"> </td> <td width="75"> </td> <td width="75"> </td> <td width="75"> </td> <td width="76"> </td> <td width="76"> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="14"> </td> <td width="109"> 10/29-31/04</td> <td align="center" width="75"> 48</td> <td align="center" width="75"> 47</td> <td align="center" width="75"> 1</td> <td align="center" width="75"> -</td> <td align="center" width="75"> -</td> <td align="center" width="76"> -</td> <td align="center" width="76"> 4</td> </tr> <tr> <td width="14"> </td> <td width="109"> 10/28-30/04</td> <td align="center" width="75"> 48</td> <td align="center" width="75"> 48</td> <td align="center" width="75"> 1</td> <td align="center" width="75"> -</td> <td align="center" width="75"> -</td> <td align="center" width="76"> -</td> <td align="center" width="76"> 3</td> </tr> <tr> <td width="14"> </td> <td width="109"> 10/27-29/04</td> <td align="center" width="75"> 46</td> <td align="center" width="75"> 47</td> <td align="center" width="75"> 2</td> <td align="center" width="75"> -</td> <td align="center" width="75"> -</td> <td align="center" width="76"> -</td> <td align="center" width="76"> 4</td> </tr> <tr> <td width="14"> </td> <td width="109"> 10/26-28/04</td> <td align="center" width="75"> 47</td> <td align="center" width="75"> 47</td> <td align="center" width="75"> 1</td> <td align="center" width="75"> -</td> <td align="center" width="75"> -</td> <td align="center" width="76"> -</td> <td align="center" width="76"> 5</td></tr></tbody></table>

As I recall, in 2004, he departed from his own data to say that he thought that despite polling data, he felt Kerry was almost sure to win.

Just as he's doing now in saying McCain might win a landslide, despite his own data contradicting it.

Again, when he departs from his data, he's nothing more than a pundit. Not really more or less credible than any other.

 

[Denny Crane]

As I recall, in 2004, he departed from his own data to say that he thought that despite polling data, he felt Kerry was almost sure to win.

Just as he's doing now in saying McCain might win a landslide, despite his own data contradicting it.

Again, when he departs from his data, he's nothing more than a pundit. Not really more or less credible than any other.

10/27 - 10/29 he had Kerry ahead. A week before the election.

Looks like he was very close to accurate in the end.

 

[Minstrel]

10/27 - 10/29 he had Kerry ahead. A week before the election.

Looks like he was very close to accurate in the end.

His numbers were good. His vocal prediction on who win the election based on experience and gut sense wasn't. He was very sure Kerry was going to win.

 

[Denny Crane]

The election is Kerry's to lose.
The election is Kerry's to lose.
The election is Kerry's to lose.
The election is Kerry's to lose.

I don't find any fault in his prognosis. Kerry lost the election as much as Bush won it.


Released: May 09, 2004 The Election Is Kerry’s To Lose
By John Zogby

I have made a career of taking bungee jumps in my election calls. Sometimes I haven’t had a helmet and I have gotten a little scratched. But here is my jump for 2004: John Kerry will win the election.

​

Have you recovered from the shock? Is this guy nuts? Kerry’s performance of late has hardly been inspiring and polls show that most Americans have no sense of where he really stands on the key issues that matter most to them. Regardless, I still think that he will win. And if he doesn’t, it will be because he blew it. There are four major reasons for my assertion:

First, my most recent poll (April 12-15) shows bad re-election numbers for an incumbent President. Senator Kerry is leading 47% to 44% in a two-way race, and the candidates are tied at 45% in the three-way race with Ralph Nader. Significantly, only 44% feel that the country is headed in the right direction and only 43% believe that President Bush deserves to be re-elected – compared with 51% who say it is time for someone new.

In that same poll, Kerry leads by 17 points in the Blue States that voted for Al Gore in 2000, while Bush leads by only 10 points in the Red States that he won four years ago.

Second, there are very few undecided voters for this early in a campaign. Historically, the majority of undecideds break to the challenger against an incumbent. The reasons are not hard to understand: voters have probably made a judgment about the better-known incumbent and are looking for an alternative.

Third, the economy is still the top issue for voters – 30% cite it. While the war in Iraq had been only noted by 11% as the top issue in March, it jumped to 20% in our April poll as a result of bad war news dominating the news agenda. The third issue is the war on terrorism. Among those who cited the economy, Kerry leads the President 54% to 35%. Among those citing the war in Iraq, Kerry’s lead is 57% to 36%. This, of course, is balanced by the 64% to 30% margin that the President holds over Kerry on fighting the war on terrorism. These top issues are not likely to go away. And arguably, there is greater and growing intensity on the part of those who oppose and want to defeat Bush.

The President’s problem is further compounded by the fact that he is now at the mercy of situations that are out of his control. While the economy is improving, voters historically do not look at indicators that measure trillions and billions of dollars. Instead, their focus is on hundreds and thousands of dollars. In this regard, there is less concern for increases in productivity and gross domestic product and more regard for growth in jobs and maintaining of health benefits. Just 12 years ago, the economy had begun its turnaround in the fourth quarter of 1991 and was in full recovery by spring 1992 – yet voters gave the President’s father only 38% of the vote because it was all about “the economy, stupid.”

The same holds true for Iraq. Will the United States actually be able to leave by June 30? Will Iraq be better off by then? Will the US be able to transfer power to a legitimate and unifying authority? Will the lives lost by the US and its allies be judged as the worth the final product? It is difficult to see how the President grabs control of this situation.

Finally, if history is any guide, Senator Kerry is a good closer. Something happens to him in the closing weeks of campaigns (that obviously is not happening now!). We have clearly seen that pattern in his 1996 victory over Governor Bill Weld for the Senate in Massachusetts and more recently in the 2004 Democratic primaries. All through 2003, Kerry’s campaign lacked a focused message. He tends to be a nuanced candidate: thoughtful, briefed, and too willing to discuss a range of possible positions on every issue. It is often hard to determine where he actually stands. In a presidential campaign, if a candidate can’t spell it out in a bumper sticker, he will have trouble grabbing the attention of voters. By early 2004, as Democratic voters in Iowa and elsewhere concluded that President Bush could be defeated, they found Governor Howard Dean’s message to be too hot and began to give Kerry another look. Kerry came on strong with the simplest messages: “I’m a veteran”, “I have the experience”, and “I can win”. His timing caused him to come on strong at the perfect time. As one of his former Vietnam War colleagues told a television correspondent in Iowa: “John always knows when his homework is due.”

Though he is hardly cramming for his finals yet and is confounding his supporters, possible leaners, and even opponents with a dismal start on the hustings, the numbers today are on his side (or at least, not on the President’s side).

We are unlikely to see any big bumps for either candidate because opinion is so polarized and, I believe, frozen in place. There are still six months to go and anything can still happen. But as of today, this race is John Kerry’s to lose.


John Zogby’s column appears in the St. Louis and Washington Business Journals.

 

[Minstrel]

I don't find any fault in his prognosis. Kerry lost the election as much as Bush won it.

That's from May. He was saying that Kerry was pretty sure to win as late as the week leading up to the election. I don't think Kerry "lost the election" in the final few days.

 

[Денг Гордон]

I don't see what makes Zogby so special for predicting the election right. Most pollsters got it right, and if you looked at the collection of polls, it was quite obvious who had the highest probability of winning.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry.html

Also, I think Zogby lost tons of credibility, when his poll said that Obama was going to win the California primary by 9 points. That was one of his regular polls and not an online poll. Ever since then, Zogby has been a joke along with American Research Group when discussing polls (although Nate Silver says that ARG has done good in past general elections, and just their primary polling might have been weird).

 

[Denny Crane]

That's from May. He was saying that Kerry was pretty sure to win as late as the week leading up to the election. I don't think Kerry "lost the election" in the final few days.

I can't find any statements by Zogby declaring or projecting a winner in the last week leading up to the election. At that point, his polls were extremely accurate and there was no clear winner.

I still don't find fault in his analysis. It's backed up by citing historical polling data, and the conclusion was right on. If he (Kerry) does lose, "it will be because he blew it."

 

[Minstrel]

I can't find any statements by Zogby declaring or projecting a winner in the last week leading up to the election. At that point, his polls were extremely accurate and there was no clear winner.

I saw him on some cable news shows in the final week saying that based on trends and how things tend to break, that Kerry was pretty sure to win, even though the polling data was close. I don't know whether he published this prediction or not that late.

In any case, it's interesting that Zogby sees McCain as a possible landslide winner, but there's not much that leads me to believe his opinion is quite likely right. His work has been quite questioned, his own data contradicts his conclusion and his conclusion that I remember from the last election wasn't borne out.

But hey, he's an outlier opinion. Toss it into the data cloud! Or should we dispense with it, since it's an outlier?

 

[Denny Crane]

I saw him on some cable news shows in the final week saying that based on trends and how things tend to break, that Kerry was pretty sure to win, even though the polling data was close. I don't know whether he published this prediction or not that late.

In any case, it's interesting that Zogby sees McCain as a possible landslide winner, but there's not much that leads me to believe his opinion is quite likely right. His work has been quite questioned, his own data contradicts his conclusion and his conclusion that I remember from the last election wasn't borne out.

But hey, he's an outlier opinion. Toss it into the data cloud! Or should we dispense with it, since it's an outlier?

His data doesn't contradict his conclusions, and his polls are not outliers.

The only thing I see that leads me to believe his claim is possible is the high % of undecideds. If he's looking back at many elections' worth of polling data to see how the undecideds went when they were this high at ~40 days out, then his hunch isn't just a gut feeling.

 

[Minstrel]

His data doesn't contradict his conclusions, and his polls are not outliers.

His data does contradict his conclusion. His own electoral map doesn't suggest a possible landslide victory for McCain. It woul require voting to break in a way that his polling data isn't currently predicting.

And I didn't say his polls were outliers. I said his opinion (that McCain could win this in a landslide) is an outlier. Very few people feel that way.

 

[Denny Crane]

His data does contradict his conclusion. His own electoral map doesn't suggest a possible landslide victory for McCain. It woul require voting to break in a way that his polling data isn't currently predicting.

And I didn't say his polls were outliers. I said his opinion (that McCain could win this in a landslide) is an outlier. Very few people feel that way.

"The big shift in the race appears to have come among independent voters, where McCain now leads by nine points, 43% to 34%."

"But McCain led by 5 points in polling completed after his statement about the suspension of his campaign. Overall, the interactive survey, conducted Sept. 23-25, 2008, included 4,752 likely voters nationwide and carries a margin of error of +/- 1.5 percentage points."

 

[Денг Гордон]

"The big shift in the race appears to have come among independent voters, where McCain now leads by nine points, 43% to 34%."

"But McCain led by 5 points in polling completed after his statement about the suspension of his campaign. Overall, the interactive survey, conducted Sept. 23-25, 2008, included 4,752 likely voters nationwide and carries a margin of error of +/- 1.5 percentage points."

Obama leads among indies in most other polls

 

[Denny Crane]

Obama leads among indies in most other polls

Yippee.

 

[SportsTicker]

The race factor and the Hillary factor are at play, too. Some % are lying to the pollsters and won't vote Obama because of his race. Sucks, but it's true.

I think this theory is unsubstantiated, unless you mean to say that "some %" could mean no meaningful %. People who aren't going to vote for Obama because of race aren't going to tell pollsters they plan to vote for him. They're more likely to lie about why they aren't voting for him.

And there's 20% of Hillary's voters, or as many as 6M votes headed to the McCain column in Nov.

Source?